While it should be designated cruel and unusual punishment – both against Canada and good taste – to reprint any of her essay, it’s important you see how silly this all is, so bear with me.

She alleges Harper “spent a lifetime plotting to transform Canada into a nastier version of Texas.” That “he really wants a government that’s too small to help its citizens.” She describes his caucus as “obedient, dark-suited, rural, punitive, women-despising MPs.”

She says Harper described the NDP as “a kind of proof that the devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.” He did say that, but most Canadian political observers know it was said as a joke.

Then she claims John Baird was “put in charge of the budget.” No he wasn’t.

It’s fair to assume the only reason this essay made it to print as is, is that the editors at Harper’s Magazine don’t know Canadian politics enough to challenge their writer to substantiate her outlandish claims. Usually their essays – while still unapologetically leftist – are far better argued.

Now, normally a columnist shouldn't waste too much time or space complaining about another columnist at a competing publication. But this is more than that.

At first glance, it appears these three misanthropes are just speaking extremely ill of Stephen Harper and his policies. That’s fair game in partisan politics.